Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Worst Case Scenario - Gulf War II

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Worst Case Scenario - Gulf War II

    If there is a war; which seems probable on hearing US and Hungarian toops are training 3000 Iraqi's as liasion officers; I do not want alot of bloodshed. Like most would agree. However, what about worst case scenarios?

    Here's one of mine: Saddam Hussein, prior to an American attack, goes after Israel with the chemical or biological weapons that Mr. Bush says Iraq possesses. Israel, if it survives, will retaliate, perhaps even with nuclear weapons. Such retaliation might indeed bring about the "regime change" Mr. Bush seeks, but it would not end the story.

    Just over the horizon lies Pakistan, a Muslim country armed with nuclear weapons and permeated by extremists. Pervez Musharraf, its president, has joined America's war on terrorism but he is unlikely to survive politically should there be a nuclear attack by an American ally on Iraq's Muslims. Islamists, overthrowing him, would take control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal; lacking the ability to launch missiles that would reach Israel, they would turn on India, their more proximate enemy. A nuclear attack would set off global chaos.


    Stupid....but you never know.

  • #2
    Or Saddam destroying his oil , now that would be a worst case scenario......

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Worst Case Scenario - Gulf War II

      Originally posted by Marko
      Stupid....but you never know.
      Yes, completly stupid and unrealistic.

      As stupid and unrealistic as the idea that somebody would highjack some jumbo-jets and fly them into the WTC & the Pentagon.

      Hey - wait...
      Last edited by Scipio; 31 Jan 03, 07:49.
      Resistance is futile!
      My little company

      Comment


      • #4
        Here's one of mine: Saddam Hussein, prior to an American attack, goes after Israel with the chemical or biological weapons that Mr. Bush says Iraq possesses. Israel, if it survives, will retaliate, perhaps even with nuclear weapons. Such retaliation might indeed bring about the "regime change" Mr. Bush seeks, but it would not end the story.

        Saddam would be committing suicide if he were to attack Israel with WMDs he doesn't have, particularly before Coalition military action began. The world could not excuse this action away. Bush would be validated, and Saddam *ss would be grass.

        The risk of Israeli retaliation is very realistic. As SCUDs reigned down on Tel Aviv in 1991, the IDF went to high alert. As a show of force, they brought their nuclear missiles to pre-launch status. US satellites detected this, and it began a major flurry in diplomacy. Fortunately, Saddam feared US retaliation for a chemical attack, and never committed his WMD capable SCUDs.

        A WMD attack on Israel would be a nightmare. If Israel looses too many people, they are more likely to retaliate with nuclear weapons than in 1991. The Israeli people have endured almost years of constant terrorists attacks. Their tolerance level has to be dropping. So if Saddam elected to screw with the Israelis in their current state of mind, it might prove to be a monumental error.

        Unfortunately, the Arab world would be incited and probably do something stupid themselves. If that's the case, the US should defend Israel however necessary. It would indeed be a serious crisis, but so is war.

        The good news is I question just how sophisicated Saddam's arsenal of WMD capable SCUDs are. If the warhead detonates at the wrong altitude, the chemical's effectiveness would be seriously degraded. I wonder if the Iraqis possess the expensive fuzes needed.

        I also believe the Israeli's might be inclined to allow the US and Coalition to address the threat. The political benefits are greater than those found in retaliation. Saddam would be toast in any case.

        Just over the horizon lies Pakistan, a Muslim country armed with nuclear weapons and permeated by extremists. Pervez Musharraf, its president, has joined America's war on terrorism but he is unlikely to survive politically should there be a nuclear attack by an American ally on Iraq's Muslims. Islamists, overthrowing him, would take control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal; lacking the ability to launch missiles that would reach Israel, they would turn on India, their more proximate enemy. A nuclear attack would set off global chaos.

        Hmmmmm................ This scenario is very unlikely. First, the US would not retaliate against an attack with nuclear weapons. Such action would hinder our own operation and place our troops in danger. If the government is toppled in Pakistan, the more likely scenario would see the leaders ordering the Allies to leave their country. Attacking India would be a foolish move that would certainly bring about retaliation and condemnation from the International community. Pakistan would have no right counter a US action by attacking a neighbor who has nothing to do with it.

        For all the Arab tough talk, these governments do harbor some fear of the US. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt depend on their relationship with the US to maintain political stability. If the US left, the Saudi government would collapse in a few years, and civil war would grip the nation. The King knows the real reason why Bin Laden wants the US to leave his country. It has little to do with Islam too.

        I'm not saying the Arab nations might not retaliate in the situations you described Marko. However, they would certainly think twice.

        Or Saddam destroying his oil , now that would be a worst case scenario......

        Saddam doesn't have oil. The oil fields ultimately belong to the Iraqi people. The same goes for all his Presidential Palaces. Should Saddam destroy these locations, he would have to answer to the Iraqi people.

        Destroying the oil fields will do Saddam little good. The US plans to rebuild them anyway to enhance production. Those oil fields are our best chance at successfully rebuilding Iraq. We'd better do all we can to preserve them.
        "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Deltapooh
          [BSaddam doesn't have oil. The oil fields ultimately belong to the Iraqi people. The same goes for all his Presidential Palaces. Should Saddam destroy these locations, he would have to answer to the Iraqi people.

          Destroying the oil fields will do Saddam little good. The US plans to rebuild them anyway to enhance production. Those oil fields are our best chance at successfully rebuilding Iraq. We'd better do all we can to preserve them. [/B]
          My quote about Saddam destroying his Oil was actually a little bi of sarcasm. Meaning no oil - no war. However, I understand this is totally impossible. I agree with you on the Pakistan attacking India stance, but Pakistan being overthrown in the near future is a serious worry to all nations in the region. I also do not think Israel would retaliate with nuclear weapons. But if they are Scuded we don't all have to pretend the Patriot is saving the day agin do we ? I recently watched the Israeli defence secretary of the time stating how they estimated 90% of the Scuds were NOT intercepted by Patriot - more BS propoganda. Saddam was just lucky that when they did hit they tended to 'miss' so to speak.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Deltapooh
            Saddam would be committing suicide if he were to attack Israel with WMDs he doesn't have, particularly before Coalition military action began. The world could not excuse this action away. Bush would be validated, and Saddam *ss would be grass. [/B]
            If there is war then Saddam is as good as dead, I know it, Bush know's it and worst of all Saddam know's it.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Re: Worst Case Scenario - Gulf War II

              Originally posted by Scipio


              Yes, completly stupid and unrealistic.

              As stupid and unrealistic as the idea that somebody would highjack some jumbo-jets and fly them into the WTC & the Pentagon.

              Hey - wait...
              Good point, terrorism isn't unrealistic.
              "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

              Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

              Comment


              • #8
                Well if Saddam did attack Israel with any WMD heres the thing theres going to be a lot of dead Palestinians along with Israelis.Thats not going to make him look too good with his Arab friends.Unless he has somehow managed to increase the accuracy of his weapons to such a degree that they can differentiate between the two peoples who in many cases live almost side by side.
                Last edited by John Paul; 01 Feb 03, 00:13.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by John Paul
                  Well if Saddam did attack Israel with any WMD heres the thing theres going to be a lot of dead Palestinians along with Israelis.Thats not going to make him look too good with his Arab friends.Unless he has somehow managed to increase the accuracy of his weapons to such a degree that they can differentiate between the two peoples who in many cases live almost side by side.
                  So you haven't heard of the Israeli seeking missile (ISM) then ?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Found this somewhere:

                    1/25/2003 - OGI: Washington) Reports citing US military intelligence are emerging in mostly American media that say Iraq is rigging its oilfields with explosive devices that can be triggered by Baghdad in the event of a US invasion. A CNN report yesterday said that selected journalists were briefed by US intelligence officers who said they had evidence to indicate some 1,500 oilwells are being wired for remote detonation.
                    According to the report, the Iraqi government will attempt to wipe out Iraq' s oilfields at the beginning of a war by destroying approximately 1,000 producing wells in southern Iraq and another 500 in northern Iraq. Wellheads are said to be being fitted with explosive mechanisms that will demolish the surface infrastructure and set fire to the reservoir in much the same way Kuwaiti oilfields were destroyed when Iraqi forces withdrew during the Gulf War a decade ago.
                    The military briefing said that US forces are "prepared to seize control of the oil fields as soon as they can" to try to keep them from being sabotaged.
                    CNN also reported that there were intelligence concerns that the Iraqi government might also try to cause an environmental disaster of mammoth proportions by dumping thousands of bbl of crude oil into the Persian Gulf at the same time it destroys its oilfields.
                    Iraq has angrily called these reports propaganda aimed at maligning the Saddam Hussein regime and building support for an invasion. Amer Rasheed, Iraq's minister of petroleum at the time, said last month at the OPEC ministerial meeting in Vienna that these reports were ridiculous lies, that that the Iraqi government would never destroy its oil infrastructure even during an attack.
                    "It is disgusting," he said. "Unbelievable."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Re: Worst Case Scenario - Gulf War II

                      Originally posted by Scipio


                      Yes, completly stupid and unrealistic.

                      As stupid and unrealistic as the idea that somebody would highjack some jumbo-jets and fly them into the WTC & the Pentagon.

                      Hey - wait...

                      That was immoral and wrong, very much so, but by no means unrealistic. Something along those lines was very much on the cards in the 12 to 18 months leading up to Sep. 11th. Of course it was shocking and a complete surprise on the day. However a major terrorist attack on America through the use of a hijacked US airliner and the deliberate plunging of it into a major public building in America was definitely something I feared was going to happen. In fact I used to sit here and wonder ' how come it hasn’t happened, or at least been attempted’. Though I must admit I never thought for a moment that 4 aircraft would be hijacked at the same time and that so many innocent people would die.
                      http://www.irelandinhistory.blogspot.ie/

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Saudi Arabia and Iran attack the Gulf bases in the Summer, cutting off the occupation forces in Baghdad.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Chemical weapons use...now thats a scary scenario.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Looter
                            Saudi Arabia and Iran attack the Gulf bases in the Summer, cutting off the occupation forces in Baghdad.
                            The old school communist in me likes to think of them as "liberation" not occupation forces

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              These days, I respect the far-fetched scenarios that anybody can develop.

                              I am the first one to admit that I would have NEVER thought 911 possible. A politic-fiction movie would have been made about terrorists destroying the Twin Towers with planes that I would have said that's a ludicrous movie. And then it happened...

                              I remember this morning when I was on top of a mountain in the Appalachians when a complete stranger with his cell phone (still going through) telling me that the World Trade Center has been destroyed by planes. I did not tell him, but I thought: "This guy doesn't know ****, I visited WTO in November 2000, just a few months ago, and I clearly remember being told by the guide that WTO has been designed to withstand plane crashes against it..."

                              Until I saw it myself on TV when back at the hotel that night. That cell phone guy was right. Whatever the WTO guide told us, well, the Twin Towers were dead nonetheless.

                              So now, although a scenario may seem lunatic, almost anything seem to have the potential to happen. And a war with Iraq, although "relatively easy" as it may seem from a military standpoint, can unleash all kinds of unforeseen events. All kinds of weird things happen in war, even the most unlikely ones. It's well-documented.

                              How do they call that? Murphy's Law or the Law of Peter I think... You just have to be prepared to face it.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X